DJariya

No it wasn't horrible. But, it wasn't really anything special. I mean it was a open and shut case about a rape victim killing the man who got away with it for many years. This could have been a Law and Order episode from 1996. I thought it was weird how they used Ross in this episode. The chant in the courtroom after the woman was found guilty was a little cringey.

I didn't mind the news characters. Cosgrove (Donovan) is kind of a snarky asshole. I will need some time getting used to Donovan playing this character. I just kept thinking Michael Weston as a cop. I saw some complaints his character isn't likeable. Price is fine I guess as the ADA.

Easiest paycheck for 81 year old Waterston. He has less than 10 minutes of screentime.

Red Dog

It wasn't awful. But it wasn't good. And yes, the way they used Jamie in this one was weird.

tommyp007

I thought the dialog and banter with the detectives seemed off, like it was being read off cue cards. Once it switched to the court, it got better. I think I'll like Dancy as the DA. Also Sam W. looks every minute of his 81 years. And I wouldn't have recognized Lowell if I hadn't seen her name in the credits.

Deftones

Jesus, Carey Lowell got old!

Paff

Exactly what I was thinking during her scenes.

Also thinking that wasn't the last we've seen of her, considering how often she was invoking the 5th in her testimony, plus the fact that there was no Jack/Jamie reunion. I'm guessing there will be one later.

Eric F

Eh, it was alright. I feel like this could have been (maybe it was) an SVU episode from over a decade ago they had lying in a pile.

sleepyhead55

I thought it was ok. If I didn't LOVE the show, I'd be a lot more critical of it. And yeah, fuck I didn't recognize Lowell at all. I was like that's Carey Lowell? She aged a ton in the past 20+ years. Back to the ep, I just didn't think also that the prosecution had a very strong case and I was slightly shocked that they got a guilty verdict out of it.

On the new cast members, the only one I liked was the Hugh Dancy character. He seemed like a good foil for McCoy to argue the specifics of the law with.

Eric F

They have 10+ yrs of SVU characters/storylines to pull from as well. It wouldn’t surprise me if we see some crossover, like Carisi making an appearance.

Philly30

I thought the Courtroom part was not very good.

Runaway

For the restart of the show, the episode was pretty bad. If you have 22 episodes a year, this is an episode you'll have to have and they were definitely playing on the Bill Cosby case, but after a 10 year hiatus you have to start off with a stronger episode.

Noonan

Not a great first episode back IMO. Donovan's character is written so poorly.

d2cheer

Ugh first one was bad really bad.

Can't stand the new DA.

Will give it a couple more even thought I didn't think I would watch it. Wife wanted to see it so...and yeah Lowell got old looking for 61. Not everyone in Hollywerid ages the same I guess.

Paff

Having had a few days to chew it over, the word I'd use is not "awful", but "clunky". A lot's changed in the last 12 years, and they seemed to go out of their way to hit us over the head with it. Plus a ton of new characters so they had to wear their personalities on their sleeves rather than let us warm up to them and get to know them. When you think about it though, the show's never had a good history of introducing new characters; I remember the first appearance of Jerry Orbach as Lennie Briscoe, coming in and acting like a big shot at the first crime scene, and again Benjamin Bratt's Rey Curtis being too overwhelmed by a murdered child on his first case.

I'll give it some time to find its feet again.

Runaway

I think that's a very good description of the problems of the first episode. Anthony Anderson was supposed to be the anchor, but it has been a decade and we don't have a grip on his character and Donovan is the new guy and Anderson suspects him to be racist, but he isn't, just insensitive. Like you said, very clunky.

Eric F

I tried to watch from the first season not too long ago and it seemed like a lot of the cops were racist anyways, but it was considered acceptable in the 90’s. It’s difficult to watch.

Noonan

Another pretty bad episode, sadly. No coincidence they drop this right when the show directly about Holmes is released.

There's something about the flow of the show that seems off. I can't put my finger on it but it doesn't seem to have the same pacing as the original.

Paff

Again, not necessarily bad, per se, but simply lazy. I mean, the defendant had to know they'd check up on her story of a broken arm.

I guess I'm waiting for that 55-minutes-in surprise twist that totally changes the case, like in so many classic L&O outings.

rw2516

McCoy addressed this earlier in the episode. His little speech about how lying has become commonplace in society, it just flows off the tongue. It's become second nature. People no longer construct them properly because nobody bothers to verify. For the defendant, there was no distinction between truth and lie. It was all equal. It would never occur to her that someone would check. And when they checked what did they discover? She was telling the truth, she did break her arm. They were expecting to discover the broken arm was the lie. The DAs believed her. Thinking to look at the videotape to see who brought her to hospital is the unbelievable part. In real life probably wouldn't have occurred to the DA. Nobody verifies to that depth anymore.

Count Dooku

In this episode, the cops have their suspect and hand the case off to the lawyers in 15 minutes. The original stayed pretty true to the half and half format.

Count Dooku

I'm confused by the idea that she changed her story after the trial had started and the jury was present.

If you want to make out that she's a liar, wouldn't all you need to do is point out that she had denied killing her BF and framed someone else for the murder?

rw2516

That became irrelevant once she claimed abuse. The "current events" the episode was addressing is the Me Too movement.
1. Where is the line in whether to believe or doubt a victim's claim. When does it become acceptable to challenge a victim's claim vs automatically believing them.
2. If abuse is established, how much leeway do we give the victims to protect/avenge themselves.

Eric F

Episode 2 also sucked.

They brought a case against that woman with only circumstantial evidence. Everything they had was speculative and didn’t even produce any hard evidence that the cancer drug she had didn’t work.

It was only because she was caught in lie (about something completely unrelated) during the trial that they got a conviction.

Count Dooku

How is it irrelevant that she lied to the police and the court about her commission of the crime, when the prosecution is trying to claim that she's a liar?

I understand that it was much more damning that they caught her in a lie about the broken arm, but before a word was ever uttered in the courtroom about her new defense, the jury was already aware of the fact that she was a liar. How could anyone on the jury with half a brain believe her abuse story when it was not the first story she told, and she had already gone so far as to frame someone else for the murder? People who commit murder in a state of emotional distress probably don't have the presence of mind to plant evidence and plot a frame up in the aftermath. I would assume that they would be shocked and horrified at what they did, scared out of their wits about the consequences.

Paff

Yeah, Dooku, I was wondering about the plotted frame-up too, I thought that was more than just an "I didn't do it" to the cops that could be overlooked had it been a true case of abuse. It was a deliberate attempt to frame someone she knew was innocent of the crime, and that alone gives you insight into her shitty character. Could have planted doubt into the jury's mind with that alone, even before the broken arm story. I was on a jury one time, the defendant testified in her behalf, totally lied on the stand about something else, and that was enough for us to decide that she was full of shit about her defense too.

What I was hoping for was something at the end that might have indicated the victim was in fact an abuser, but not necessarily of his partner. Like maybe something he'd done in childhood. Something that might make you doubt all the facts in the case and wondering whether justice was really served (note, that would be irrespective of if she'd been convicted or not).

rw2516

From the DA's point of view it didn't matter what the jury thought of her framing somebody else for the crime. What they were concerned with was that in 2022, suggesting that an abuse victim was lying would piss off the jury enough that they would acquit even though she framed somebody else. The jury would acquit because the guy had it coming to him.
Once she claim to be abused, her lying about the murder became irrelevant. they had to prove she was lying about the abuse. Before the DA could commit the sin of suggesting she was lying about the abuse they needed concrete proof.
People who lie about abuse are seen as harming actual abuse victims, making it harder for them to believed. That probably pissed the jury off more than lying about the murder. Fuck her. Guilty.